Anatomy of Sex

As one young couple settles down to start a family, learn how biological and evolutionary forces conspire to keep the human race running.

Our bodies work in specific, subtle ways for one reason only: making more humans. Travel inside the body to see what happens to both men and women when attraction occurs and when orgasm finally ensures the possibility of replicating ourselves.

Learn why humans are one of only 3% of all mammal species that require both a male and a female for care giving.

And discover the evolutionary significance behind the fact that humans mate front to front – when all other species prefer front to back.

I don't know what you mean by 'we', but our ancestors were at one stage almost certainly apes by present day definition of 'ape'

Colter Hansen
- 04/25/2012 at 18:37

we werent close to being apes

Intervening Ulysses
- 03/23/2013 at 00:31

we and apes have the same ancestors.

(Divided about 5 million years ago)

Plenum
- 02/21/2013 at 12:14

True, Razhan, we are not. But, genetically we are very similar, and evolution takes many hundreds of thousands of years to develop a separate species. Identical, no - but genetically similar, yes. Very much so.

This documentary explains shit that sex ed in the 4th grade has already taught me. It doesn't explain on a biological level why there are curtain humans who are sexually attracted to other species and wants to mate with them.It also doesn't explain sexual disorders like being attracted to inanimate objects etc. This doc is just a poor excuse to showcase porn. >_>

How can evolution be a lie? It is scientifically proven... it is the best answer we have got. And we, along with all other species who inhabit this planet ARE still evolving. It's called microevolution. It is still occuring.

ChristieC
- 07/22/2011 at 01:16

Example of microevolution?

MaxV
- 08/17/2013 at 16:46

Human babies now being born without appendixes, an organ we no longer need.

ginger16
- 06/30/2011 at 10:59

Actually the theory of evolution does not say that we evolved from apes. We and apes share a common ancestor, and we took different evolutionary path from there. And as gizmo said, all species are still evolving so there is proof right here and now. Evolution cannot be disproved.

anonym ous
- 08/13/2011 at 17:37

Can't tell if trolling or just stupid

Godsclaws
- 10/04/2011 at 14:29

and whos to say monkeys and apes arnt still evolving hmm? evolution takes thousands of years so of course you wont see an ape turn into a human during one lifetime. you are a dumba$$

Lui
- 02/14/2011 at 06:21

PS: Eric, as much as I have tried to better understand your points, please, contribute a little to what the main purpose of this blog was regarding such film instead of pushing your very unclear thoughts while pushing onto everyone your own believes, because basically you just do not make sense. Every point you try to make yeah you use big and theoretical points and words, but in the end you go about 50 circles within one point and end up pushing on 100 thoughts into one simple explanation and then pretend you are a super being and everyone else is ignorant to your comments why? because you make no sense? NO... because if you could actually answer one comment with a simple answer (as much as I can tell it can be hard for you without showing off your ideological thoughts of super intelligence) you might actually end up answering something..
please man, grow up, your inner thoughts of you super IQ makes no difference if you can not even put a point across.!

OK.. I really do not understand whats wrong with all of you. To tell you the truth, this is just a film of what SOME scientists have done to better understand the facts and the how and when things happen within our bodies during the act of sex. They are not involving religion, mathematics, or any other kind of thing into their results. These scientists are not here showing you how math or religion or w/e you all want to argue in here interact with sex, but how sex looks, starts, acts and ends.
What is all this about your mathematics of sex, self understanding or religious views on this film? This is again just a film explaining how these scientists view the act of sex through what science has provided AS TOOLS to better view, understand and learn from such experiments.
And everyone here using their metaphors and theories of their own views on what these film should represent, instead of what the film shows so people who know very little of what really happens within the act of sex besides what is externally viewed means and therefore better understand what happens within their bodies and the actual act..
Please, people, refrain from your ideological thoughts of your own inner IQ's of 200+ and how bout simply understanding that THIS IS A FILM THAT SHOWS PEOPLE WHAT SEX LOOKS LIKE FROM WITHIN along with A SMALL REFERENCE OF WHERE IF CAME FROM AND WHAT IT WAS MEANT FOR.
I mean please, its on your LOCAL CABLE show..

memory is the past, the known(i know you) and yes it is you having the semantics problem and you must admit that to yourself cause it is not wrong and ofcourse that the memory or the image or the known which is the past is not the thing, but do you see that actually? which is do you see that, not from memory, or what is known, cause as we are saying, the past can never be the thing, but merely a memory a image of what is, just as the footprints in snow that fade over time :)))) and ofcourse the knowledge in a book is distinct but none the less underneath that distinction it is all memories, from things you either observe yourself or reitarete from the documented observation of someone else, which became memory, the known, and how one comes to say they know. but we are then approaching the question, is there any kind of learning, knowing which is different?

I am not sure if we are just disagreeing over semantics here eric or if there is some other disagreement. Memory is clearly a stored image of a past event. Just not the exact same thing as the event. If you disagree with this then consider this: two people observe the same single event and are asked 1 week later to recall the event to the best of their ability in as much detail as possible. will there be differences in the two descriptions of the same thing? Your own memory of an event taken 1 week, 1 year and one decade after the event. Will they be the same? Why/ why not?

Other discrepancies occur in the transition between thought and wording? These questions lead neatly into your second statement that we touched on. Memory is not knowledge . It Is the location where images and thoughts are stored but we cannot call this knowledge! Until it is expressed in words, how can you be sure that you image/thought does not contain some error in it? Some missed train of logic? Missing information perhaps? We cannot classify thoughts as knowledge until they are expressed in words.

As stated before in this post there is a transition between thought and word - much is lost, unclearly stated and these are the reasons that there is a requirement for worded knowledge as opposed to internal images or thoughts defined as knowledge.

This is exactly the purpose of philosophy - The clarification of thought.

Nicely put. Just one thing: knowledge does not have to be expressed verbally for it to be considered as such. We have different types of memory/knowledge and some of it is actually not verbal. For instance, your skills and performance in sports or arts cannot be expressed fully in words. In addition, some people think more verbally, some more visually. We can't just say that the latter don't possess any or less knowledge. Finally, men are generally verbally weaker than women. Following the logic of your comment, women possess more knowledge than men? :)

eric
- 10/09/2010 at 01:22

epicurean if you accept that when something is stored in the brain it is not a thing of the past, then I really have very little to say; this conversation is taking place on that basis and you dont see that which is so obvious, if you do not see this fact that memory which is remembrance is something of the past and that remembrance is a recall in the present of something that was... then we cannot continue; and is that still what you accept with the complications aside? since I am responding to a comment which was, right?

There is no shame in being an addict: it issimply the way some people are made. Addicts ARE responsible for their behaviour in so far as it affects other people but they are NOT responsible for being addicts i.e. for having what is probably a genetically inherited condition affecting the transmission of neuro-chemicals in the mood-centres of the brain.

I found a copy of a short pamphlet of theirs called 15 reasons for continuing to smoke (or not) by Dr Robert Lefever in the charity shop for the bargain price of £1.25, I do so love a bargain and a cursory reading of it made a huge impression on me.

The exert I was quoting says:

On the principle that prevention is the best form of treatment, we should endeavour to identify the addictive population before young children ever get to the state of using mood altering substances and processes. Those children who are often misdiagnosed as being depressed or having ADD or Hyperactivity syndrome, or other significant behavioural problems are commonly those who have an addictive nature and who will subsequently become overt addicts. Those children can be identified on the following behavioural characteristics.

1. Coming from an addictive family
2. Being highly manipulative, more so than other children
3. Having extreme mood swings for no truly justifiable reason
4. Having a sense of personal isolation even when surrounded by friends
5. Being easily hurt and emotionally fragile
6. Becoming easily frustrated and dissatisfied.

The book then goes on to elaborate and expand on many other related ideas and solutions. That was the only reference to ADHD.

I am so glad to hear that you are not on Ritalin (aka Amphetamine/speed) and are doing well without drugs.

I tried to find the article about ADHD on their website, but couldn't find it.

I'm not offended. I don't take any meds or drugs, though. I'm pregnant. I wish I could take something to help this constipation.

Anyway- that guy in the grocery store was weird. And wouldn't it be awkward to be entirely still while having an erection inside someone in an MRI machine? While creepy perverts watched? Idk. I don't have a weiner. Just a thought.

Look into the "Promis recovery centre" Online to read a compelling account of what ADHD may be! In short and if you are interested it could be related to being an addict, dont be offended please its not something to be embarrassed or proud of its just that 10 % of the population according to the above links research have imbalances in the emotional centres if the brain, myself included and often ADHD is a misdiagnosed and really a manifestation of addictive disorders through no fault of our own in the Amygdala.

Have a look if you like... compelling read that suggest the reduction and complete cessation of all forms of addictive substances and processes.

I would be interested to see what you think of it and it rang true for me on many levels.

Oh my… Cant believe I am getting drawn into this eric, Memory in not, I repeat, not, I repeat, not, the past. It is a sense impression stored in the mind of the past. The event occurs but once in a moment never to be returned to and even if the event is imagined the sense impression stored in the brain is a vivid recollection of the event but is not the event itself or even a perfect representation of it. It is stored account of a moment… not the same... as the event last a moment and the memory can last a lifetime, both are subject to change and interpretation!

A perception or memory cannot be called knowledge until it is expressed in words. An event/ an image in the mind/a string of words. How can they be one and the same?

ohhh geeez epicurean have you complicated things, knowledge is memory, all the known is memory, of the family, of the learned and so on is the makeup of memory, thought, thinking, remembering, recognizing which is the past.... memory is the past....is there any seeing which is now? perception which is now, not of memory or remembrance, forget expertize no one can know the brain better than oneself, and self knowledge is what we are lacking not expertize poor epicurean are you stuck in rut my friend; go into it, see it actually, dont just go around saying you know and provide me with answers

Not sure where to go with this eric as I gave an answer to the best of my current ability as " placing the word 'memory' in various sentences and substituting it for an equivalent word or phrase I say that memory is recollection, a mental storage of an event, a sense impression stored in the mind …"
The sexual context is to keep in line with the doco as I don’t want Vlatko criticizing us for going too far of context!

Its much simpler just put aside the sex part :)
The question is what is memory? And we said not an analysis right? How does knowledge come about? when one says I know/ is there a difference between memory and knowledge? I put forth a question on the previous post? and the answer came about how?

By placing the word memory in various sentences and substituting it for an equivalent word or phrase I say that memory is recollection, a mental storage of an event, a sense impression stored in the mind … The sexual act is so vivid in the memory for the reason that it is one of the few activities that uses all 5 senses (so called total knowledge) all other memories are inputted partially… But what right do we have to trust our memory? can you not concede that your recollection of an event will inevitably differs from another observers recollection of the same event? Your lovers recollection of sex will differ from yours due to their different perception and paradigm! This is but one example set in context of the documentary… What right do we have to trust our memory if this is the case?

From here we can move to Descartes more general question of 'is there any knowledge which is infallible? Clearly not! For if it were infallible it would not be possible to doubt it. Is there anything which cannot possibly be doubted? Again clearly not Physics, history… The method of doubt is like a sieve that retains only absolutely certain knowledge. The memory can be doubted.

Im glad you do not see any conclusion to this, so lets not make one epicurean is that possible :)? Suppose I say to you that intelligence unlike memory or storage is not something that can be recorded on to the brain, hence one cannot learn to be intelligent as society is often trying and as parents are seeking to make their kids smart through various ways; what is memory? memory of yourself? memory of math, what does all of that consist? so you see we are asking a question which is not to analyze memory, but to find out the whole? what is memory?

A response: The inputting is not the memorization part of intelligence. To clarify, a book is read and on the first reading a certain percentage of the text can be read and absorbed by the mind. How much can be absorbed… depends on how good your ability to input is. The retain part pertains to the memory! The manipulation is not so sinister as you may think an example will hopefully clarify: input a + b= c and a = c + d therefore we can 'manipulate' this in the mind and after a little algebra we conclude that b = -d. The 3 components explained in simple terms!

I find your non-conclusive style interesting eric and it seems to somehow illuminate the question under consideration. As well as confuse in some cases! Also anyone who can bring mathematics into a conversation about sex is ok in my book.

An after thought: Mental creativity consists of smashing up the mosaic of experience and using the shards to build a new picture?

You are asking, is intelligence the manipulation of thoughts, information or your memories or what you know and gather throughout the day? I wonder that you give such little to finding out the meaning of or the actuality of intelligence? Is intelligence the ability to input information which is memorization? is not the manipulation of information a mere exercise of ones thoughts modifying the past, or the known, in the present? What is the relationship between intelligence and the clearing of the known for the clarity of seeing the new, the uncapturable....It takes a very intelligent human being to say I dont know, to find out cause it is only then when one will....the rest of us seem to stop there, so ask yourself epicurean logic, is that what you do? honestly and will you manipulate the result in some way,or input it as you want, or see clearly the non intelligence of it and what you do with it?

Can the girdled walls of another consciousness ever be fully penetrated? Can it occur partially during the sexual act or a strangers smile? Are we not trapped in our own domain without any hope of full insight into another mind? Is clarity an emotional response? Isn't intelligence just the ability to input, manipulate and retain information?

a machine cant relate and therefore cant learn on its own;what is learning? you got the obvious material part of it down, but there is just something to which you are concluding here aren't you? What is intelligence?

Hah, yeah the relationships you describe start with physics, which describes relationships between atoms = chemistry, which desribes relationships between molecules, amino acids, proteins, that make up cells and proteins binding outside and between cells make up tissues, specific relationships of proteins and molecules allow for these components. As even you may know different types of tissues make up an organ, different types of organs make up an organism as complicated as ourselves. That is one amazing machine. You should really take a course in zoology!

patterns are different than relationships Liz; The body is an organism, not a machine or a system; I think you need to put aside your technical, computational trainings and then it can be approached; we create machines, we create patterns, cause they are repetitive and predictable and the outcome is certain; and we are also programing ourselves, so you really need to understand what conditioning is...I think I'm finished with this hopefully Cause Liz when it comes to sex it mostly has to do with what is evoking in the brain, cause Ii hope we are clear that the brain is not separate from the body, habits are examples of patterns in the brain, patterns waste the mind; learned behavior can be patterneized and that is conditioning, repetition, which is unlike repeating a math equation

From The C...No I have not Read that book But Ill take a look Thanks for the Suggestion

It is evolution baby! :-) Natural selection, survival of the fittest, your immune system that was passed down to u from the two people that concieved you... that is what is even allowing us to have this convo! No one has proof of how this amazing system came about! Your body is a master machine! It is amazing and hard to fathom, but it doesn't mean you have to belittle the patters/relationships because u do not yet know all the answers. Don't close your mind off to the possibility that you may choose someone to sleep with based on your attraction... what you find (in your opinion = something u formed from the way u think (internal) and your past experiences (external). Btw, not sure if this leads to the heart of the matter cuz ur not the clearest writer, but evolution and divine creation are not mutually exclusive. They can both exist... biology/your body is an amazing machine. Also who knows about time back then there was no formal way to document it... just word of mouth and we have all seen where that can take us.

so we dont get caught up in all of this as I was finishing the previous post, but yes its mainly the theories, and conclusions that they used maths and sciences to validate, which is what I mean by approach

its like measuring, comparing between who you are going to sleep with tonight, that girl over there or the other cutie, and then looking at which one has a better figure, will a shorter girl please you, do you think that she will and so on; and measuring or comparing in math or science, believe it or not that same behavior that happens with regard to the example of picking a partner extends itself to thinking in math and sciences and so on...

you have to understand that relationships and patterns are different, yes there is a relationship to all of life, just as the way that most people are attracted to each other is for very primitive reasons, or what media has made of it, which when becoming something common, there can be a pattern noticed and so on, this is different when you are talking about math, or order, or computing something; psychology and behavior can be in complete disorder, dysfunctional relationships between man and woman etc...

Ahh... should not be using a cell phone for this sorry about the last accidental post! Patterns in leaves can be modeled by fractionals.... sorry computational biologist perspective noted here! Just take it or leave it. Everyday more and more patterns in biology, psychology, sociology, etc. (Aka: "the soft sciences") are realized/discovered to actually have a mathematical derivative. Just because they are all not yet know doesn't mean they don't exist!

It is really the Approach in question, I'm sure the tests were accurate in things on the anatomy, technology does not lie, but it is man that makes something of it to suit his needs, whether to prove a theory or just make some pure entertainment of a certain topic; you see just like in a music group or a project there are many things involved, and not everyone involved is making nonsense of it, there are some people that are serious some that are making money, benefiting, some actually playing the instruments, who have talent and some that have someone sing for them and however good the song sounds no part can be applied to the whole

To hypothsize you do not need exact proof. A hypothesis is what you form from your theory inorder to go about collecting data/observations/proof that your theory is true or factual. A conclusion is what you have once you gather data/observations/ facts/ proof that either supports or refutes your hypothesis (aka: theory). This documentory is wonderful, very scientific, and brings very interesting facts to the table. I personally thought the individual who mentioned there was no factual supporting evidence presented and who mentioned there were conclusions drawn that were not complete is just picking at semantics because they chose to ignore the information that they do not agree with in the film. :-) There was most certianly maths appl

math is not just measurement and patterns, patterns in math are different to patterns in leaves for example because a pattern from leaf to leaf is not repetitive; what you are implying by patterns is something distinct to human behavior which implies something that is repetitive; this is not semantics I think that should be clear, conclusions are for the shallow....Read completely cause all of what you said was already cleared up; what you say about a theory and hypothesis is a process, and a process thinking is mechanical thinking, which is formed from other theories, we are talking about actual not theories based on a few things known; there are a few docs on here that show what was happening years ago when scientists kept forming theories, suppositions, conclusions, and one can see that is took a scientist who just looked, examined it thoroughly to see that it was wrong, why most of you search for conclusions is so silly to me, Truth is not a conclusion, it is just so...

To hypothsize you do not need exact proof. A hypothesis is what you form from your theory inorder to go about collecting data/observations/proof that your theory is true or factual. A conclusion is what you have once you gather data/observations/ facts/ proof that either supports or refutes your hypothesis (aka: theory). This documentory is wonderful, very scientific, and brings very interesting facts to the table. I personally thought the individual who mentioned there was no factual supporting evidence presented and who mentioned there were conclusions drawn that were not complete is just picking at semantics because they chose to ignore the information that they do not agree with in the film. :-) There was most certianly maths applied to conclusions presented in forms of measurement and patterns. Great film... shallow discussion. ;-)

just as the fact that we are a part of this universe we dont have to observe ourselves that way, isolate ourselves and create a god, or theorize, speculate, when not understanding ourselves is also a lack of understanding to the whole of it, so one can accept all of those theories, speculations, but without yourself is 0 every time

The partial coming from the whole one must keep observing, looking, not stopping to tangle with any of it, its like when you make a picture of somebody, you have just created a part, a base you observe them with, and you add more things to that base from other parts, conversations, what others know of that person, or what they have done, which is knowledge; so is there looking taking place, actually, I dont mean when we are sitting on this computer and typing,then we can say whatever, but is there looking taking place and how will you find out?

wrong questions? How does the partial arise? that is really your question? which is, what is the observer seeing? and in that is there an interrupt; the observeddddd will not interrupt itself or from being seen wholly, just as when you observe one particular thought and analyze it, instead can you observe the whole, total of thought, which is to observe thought without coming to a conclusion, (to its very end) makes sense hopefully? The word holistically is not a holistic movement; the moment of cutting is the separation from reality, cause there is no observation or looking to any of that, the partial came from the whole

Can we really claim that anything is total or is there a partial element to all things? How is a partial conclusion related to sex and the sexual act? must we dissect the act in order to observe/understand it? can we just not partake in it and somehow reach a more holistic 'undersatnding'? is that also partial?

Conclusion/hypothesis are part of the same 'entity' (for want of a better word) one without the other is meaningless. All knowledge is partial in the sense that we must 'cut' reality into parts order to observe,deduce, question and conclude.. The act of asking the question is a cutting of 'reality'.

Is there a difference actually between what takes place with a conclusion and hypothesis? can a conclusion be made of a hypothesis? you are implying that we are playing with words which is not so, a hypothesis is a supposition,a theory, its essentially a intellectuals conclusion; I say that if you see actually the partiality of analysis you just wont go there at all, to look at something wholly is not taking pieces of and breaking them up and binding them at another time; if you broke something of to look at it that means it was from that which is whole; which is a unrelative thing to do and just because one finds a field that deals with the same topic does not mean you can add to it especially when what is claimed is partial.......

liz, yes those are the patterns described, visible, but there are also conclusions made, and those are where the problem in understanding begin, one has to understand the distinction between what is observable and a conclusion, and an accepted conclusion which is imitated and repeated in behavior like animals; a conclusion can essentially be a form of analysis, dissections and binding of two unrelated observations; and that is where the psychology aspect of it takes place; analysis is always partial and so one is just taking other things like math or scientific data to fit that.. and you have a conclusion essentially
on math and science just because something is presented with gadgets does not mean it is science and nor something that has been created using math mean it is used logically; math is also looking; and what I am saying is that In no way can with an MRI machine the brain be observed in its totality; It just cant happen, and that is a irrefutable fact and that means that most interactions with the brain and other parts of the body cant be explained off in the same manner logically

Believe it or not this documentary is describing patterns that have been observed in the majority of the human population, it is a mix of sociology, psycology, biology, chemistry, physics, and the base level mathematics. I mean really, they are using a MRI to measure brain activity how could u not see this as a use of mathematics! Yes it is overgeneralized to some extent but go to the library or to classes to learn the info described in detail. Crazy are the people who think only they can choose/declare what is and is not science. It is not a freaking opinion that is why it is science. Don't worry people who do this are only closing doors for themselves.

you see as a kid you do not have to be told about the birds and bees; but if you care for your kids as a parent you would not divorce yourself from nature as you do with each other; but you would as a serious human and caring parent make sure that your child is with all things in communion and of all of the things of life, sensitive, touching, looking understanding new which is something that each child is born to do and that means all of us and so why we as humans have become so insensitive requires your inquiry, the actual observation just as the child.....

And I dont mean that you add ideas, or thought, or just state what you think cause that is not the actual and does no good for the other who is serious or who really wants to find out, but if you are serious you can shed some light, perhaps a little bit on something that you have understood yourself and put some energy to understand through it thoroughly, so that it has become clear to oneself and then when you talk about it it is from the actual perception of what is, not something partial which is from a psychologist or scientist or recognition of what you have learned in school and then you can understand what it means to understand something fresh, new, actually and perhaps in your cases differently and you are struggling with me because of that which I hope you are aware of; which is that what is being said is different than what you are used to, what you have been accustomed to by society, and if you get used these writings or make a way of this than that will do you no good the next time that I write that is if I ever want to

Its rare that any of you will feel anything for anyone just as its rare that you will feel anything for anyone commenting on these sites otherwise you would not jump to insult, criticize; cause you do not understand or feel as another human being and most of you do not understand yourselves or feel as one, with each other but in this technological age you are becoming more and more like the computers you use which are insensitive things that can still be programmed to be more sensitive than most of you, which is not a criticism but a fact and a sad one if you understand the whole human circumstance and the kind of relationships you are forming on this web with each other; so me as a non human being to you which is what I am, which is, that all that you see are text on this page for which you will dissect every little thing to its death, is a part of being insensitive to the very thing behind all of this that is living, and so you as a human must be aware of this, aware of yourselves cause you are not just writing to Eric you are writing to the whole community of man for which you are exchanging thoughts that become a part of all of our consciousness and none of you have added anything to this consciousness which is new, fresh, different, beyond your normal beliefs or ideas that you have about certain things

means that so much of our understanding comes through the understanding of something outside yourself, and then you attach or seek to apply it on yourself inwardly, where as you must pursue the understanding to see if it is really so and observe yourself, look at yourself, the actual; not the self which is written about and discard or accept what you like cause then you are not looking at yourself or observing but the self is dictating what it should be and what it wants to be; not what you are cause you can never get what you are from something else or someone else or understand actually any the things that you do, the way that you behave and the causes of such. sex is another behavior none the less and through watching others, through pursuing ones desires, or pursuing images of each other you construct that behavior in the real and imitate it when you dont know a thing about it actually; you see if no one told you what sex was and it was as innocent as when you were young, but all the things were in place at an older age, then there would also take place a sensitivity, exploration of a kind of the real sensations that are felt with each other, when you are around each other and one might actually fell something for the other, not the corrupted thing it has become that all of you are helping make, as the kids that you make under these circumstances without any care for what you are doing, but fulfilling your own appetites...

So called missionary position was propagated by the religious right, it was done to seperate humans from animals in every way, from the way we eat at a table to sex. If you read "The beast within: Animals in the middle ages" it describes all the things the church did to create a huge gulf between humans and animals.
I don't believe the woman's vagina "moved forward" at all, since people can still easily have sex in the doggie position, so it couldn't have moved much if it did.

i think the matter you are talking about is completely not relating to the video , I think you should watch this video again and before it just erase all the concept of learning and specially maths from your mind then only you will be able to get something out of this.

And the difference between SCIENCE and FAITH is quite simple: I CAN PROVE something works like this or like that ,in science.
Some things can be only theorised,but much stuff in theories can be applied, in science.

I CANT prove something works,but i believe - that is faith. Let's say that from now on,i believe that my pants are made of gold. I will try to sell them for 1 gazillion dollars. You can guess what will the outcome be from this pathetic attempt.

1 method brings you closer to the truth. the other one brings you closer to comfort

actualy this is no evolution propaganda,science evolved from visionary people. If you took time and read something about evolution, you could understand it too. Evolution needs no propaganda,because it stands on its own.

It is like this: immagine the mountaing called "Probability".

There is a steep slope - there can't be no immediate climb to the top. It would be impossible.
How would it be easier to get atop? gradualy,by the slopes.Just by chance. And i understand this is a scary thought.

But let me be blatant: if Adam and Eve existed...their children had sex with themselves.Now,didnt god say that having incestual sex is punished by DEATH ?

And come on,how can somebody take a 2000 year old book that was "reformed" a few times (they even missrepresented the original age 0 ,because the guy who did this counted Augustus and Octavian as two different people,which in fact were the same person...read about it)... and i dont think the "good book" is an email sent by god. Then why do people kill in the name of God? in the old testament ,every thing that the last 30 popes did ,was punishable by DEATH or STONING.

So ,probably those inconsistencies (and tons more) were caused by human error? we are only human ,right? but if that is so,wouldnt it be simpler to say that if this is true,maybe all of the other things the bible say could be wrong?

Why do the Bishops who work in the Vatican Observatory ,refute the conclusions of the Creationists? If you think the bible should be read as it is written (everything is true in that book,by your logic) and you think the Church is holy (why so many pedophiles there anyway ?) , do you think these Vatican astronomers know less than you?
I can agree with Vatican scientist in 1 thing: it is SCIENCE and it is fact. Accepting a bronze-age text is like throwing away the modern equipment for treating cancer... it is simply idiotic.

Philip a.k.a. Eric: Do you really think nobody knew these things? please,at least post some sources on these theories ...

And btw, just because a documentary doesn't say 1000 other information about sexuality and sex and evolution and other things, does it mean THEY HIDE or MISREPRESENT something? My god,your way of thinking is demented.

first you talk like psychology is hocus-pocus,then you contradict yourself by saying we should try to understand ourselves and not take examples from others (a form of PSYCHOLOGY!) and then you putt mathematics in to play to realy explain something so simple ,that ultimately your conclusion makes no sense whatsoever.

And even if this is not what you meant, dont you think that just maybe you were not clear enaugh? Maybe because most people here have no clue what you mean,is a good indicator (scientific approach,observation. also,mathematical) that your point is either in one of 2 cathegories: 1) you completely missunderstood the concept of psychology OR 2) you can't speak up your mind and then try to rationalize with mathematics something that is not allways rationable <-- this has to be the most un-mathematical way of thinking.

So basicaly,for a guy that thinks he knows about mathematics,is a pretty poor attempt at mathematics :)

are you talking about pseudo-sciences that you miss-represent as psychology? psychology is a proven science (so is psychiatry and psychoteraphy). Who the hell is thinking that all of the examples of others applies to oneself? You putt MATHEMATICS into play,when we talk about human brain ???
Human brain functions are working more or less the same way as in every healthy human.But emotions are something that is a subjective matter.
It is like a car: everyone knows how an engine works.But not everyone is able to drive a car safely ,just because he knows how the engine works. (bad example,but close to the point) . Or even better,think of it as IMMAGINARY NUMBERS. We can't prove what exact number is in it (not allways),but we can still solve the "puzzle" of a certain problem with it.(gah,i am so far away from school that it is possible i screwed this one up)

actualy,i dont understand what your point is ... what, like ... just try to understand yourselves and ignore modern psychology? this is clearly a contradiction on its highest form

Insertion... haha lol. science geek perverts... well I guess this research is necessary to develop advanced sex androids.

Also when people talk about free choice they have no idea what they are talking about. Men and women are all about their hormones and sex.... We really have so little choice about who we are... especially when it comes to attraction. Conscious decision is rare and secondary to the physical realities.

i can not take the FASHIONALBE misrepresentations they call SCIENCE ..this missionary position has a history of a few 1000 years not MILLIONS .
The missionary position has been used at least for millennia if not longer since it is also used by the great apes[7][8] as well as other primates.[9] Robert Francoeur notes that evidence of the missionary position's use appears in ancient pottery and art in the Fertile Crescent as well as in the art of Early Greeks, Romans, Peruvians, Indians, Chinese and Japanese.[10] The majority of the positions described in the Kama Sutra involve the woman lying on her back with her legs in a variety of positions.[11] According to Canongate, ancient art shows missionary as being less popular than woman-on-top positions in Ur, Greece, Rome, Peru, India, China and Japan.[12] But Francoeur states that the ancient Chinese preferred male-on-top because of their belief that males are born face down and women face up. Kagaba natives in Colombia preferred missionary because of the stability it offers; they believed that if the woman moved during intercourse, the earth would slip off the shoulders of the four giants who held it up above the waters.[10] Some Kerala tribes believe that the male-on-top position is the only way to conceive warriors.[10]

In Greece, the missionary position was originally an unpopular position. Beds existed, yet not as we know them today, and men would marry girls 14 or 15 old, which created a height differential. These factors made the rear-entry standing position more convenient.[13] However, circa the second century, Artemidos popularized the missionary position among Greco-Roman Stoics, declaring it "the only proper and natural" position due to the flow of semen.

i still like doggy style and most chicks find great freedom and pleasure that way form self stimulation this postion allows ..... this "ROMAN tic " spin on sex and mono agony , kill me we are so mind F'd into believing there is one and only one way , this is lie the MONASANTO of sex in a scinece flick , some chick magazine justiflying this insaniyt of social sexual based manipulation , effectin us at our basic drive of reproduction .

Manipulate the society thru core needs , sex expression is a core need if the population is off center stressed thier 2 gigs of processing power is devoted to core MASLOW issues the ruling calss can get away with murder adn the slave peasant is to stressed at home to worry about it .

i gotta stop watching this flic , for my own happy happy , fine my happy spot and this tiwsted fashion science AIN'T IT for this good ole red neck boy ...

The mental state of each person , self esteem , plays a greater part than the bio dynamics alone.

science get stuck in a rutt ... first it was the world is flat , then we are relted more closey withe chimps yet .... From the point of view of hemoglobin structure, it appears that the gorilla is just an abnormal human, or man an abnormal gorilla, and the two species form actually one continuous population

and when it comes to things like thickness of sperm the firm plug as compared to the softer mass of the gorilla and human shows evidence trailsw e both are HAREM BASED , not the rape culture of the chimp yet of course over the 13 million years of homind development many breeding did happen ... think about the vast form of dogs hard to beleive they are the same speicies . ( instincutalism.org ..mating behavior page )

was the smallness of the gorilla testes 4 times? or 1/4 smaller or about 3/4 the size of human ,,, while the hcimp has a MULTIPLE OF 3 ... 3 nuts worth of sperm production for every nut we have .... again the evidence tail support HAREM FAMILY UNITS while modern science projects current relationship MORES and not reality . Justifaction for our current messed up world .

i gotta stop now i wrote a book on this TWISTED INSTINCT after my 3 rd divorce kids with each chick .... and just finish watching in frustated silence of the continued mind F of humanity .

i dig Eric , his use of WORD TOOL in Math is , his way of expressing . The inter connective ness of the human condition is, mind blowing . i ain't seen the flick yet , sure hope it just ain't lame science porn love story

The dim-witt in the supermarket was truly creepy; I shutter to think how many less-than-intelligent women he's combined his DNA with to make moronic little replicas of himself. I must be getting old if thinking of that pea-brain overpopulating the inner city was the most "interesting" aspect of this so-so documentary. :-( A bit boring, actually, as a whole, but the information about the brain was at least a little interesting.

you see, it is very easy to read that we are not excluding anything at all, so for you to write that we are excluding the body is really very naive; and if your understanding of mathematics is through equation than that is very limited, and the fact that you would make that assumption I have to question what language you speak? and whether you are just arguing or looking at what is being said, you are making a separation of the brain mind body that is just destroying the interconnection so if you understand that actually which you do not, than if you do not understand yourself completely,the desire, sexual pleasure and so on than you'd have nothing to look at but make an analysis as you are doing which is partial, the equation is not separate from looking. you are making order into some mechanical process or mathematical letters, so you are not aware of the order which is there which is where mathematics comes in which is something what even anatomy has to abide by; you are acting like some silly kids who first hear about experience so they think they will learn something if they do it; you are all lacking sensitivity, so it is not possible for you to understand even in the act of; you are all just validating my first comment; when it comes to mathematics actually, really you are not just doing equations that you are going to apply to something but you are also learning to look first, Why don't you all just read the first comment carefully, not from your own point of view of high school math?

Eric has some trouble communicating, but I think his take is that the mind is more beautiful than the body and thus we should not be looking at what happens during sex or having any sex at all, in the lab or elsewhere.

Well, Eric, the truth is that mathematics is but a tool for grasping the so-called real world. If you take the real world out of the equation (pun intended), then your mathematics is about as fascinating as someone else's crossword puzzles. You can invent and solve hypothetical problems in hypothetical worlds and maybe even stimulate your pleasure glands if you are successful, but noone else is going to pay much attention or benefit from these undertakings.

That said, the documentary indeed was more like ADHD entertainment than science. The animations were nice and colorful, though.

I think poor Eric is simply... confused, as if someone on the brink of rapturous philosophical discovery but without the tools to do anything with it. It must be frustrating to be so in love with the brain yet not possess one. I'm sorry, that was cruel. I'm sure he has his charms.

But if indeed you're right about his commentary (I read the exchanges both above and below this year-old conversation, some of which came later than your note) this is indeed the paradox. What uses is there for the theoretical if it stymies actual progress rather than explains or advances it?

Could math be applied to the anatomy of sex? Of course, as could the other sciences, which some of this documentary did seem to try to show, albeit with excessive fanfare and maybe not enough depth (no pun intended).

Later in this exchange, Eric gets into asking whether knowledge can exist without memory and -- I think -- seems to say that it can't. This point has yet to be conclusively argued, with philosophy falling on all sides of the discussion. So I won't pretend to have sorted it out.

But I couldn't help thinking about Euclid (which I can't believe I'm typing about in a forum post under a lite documentary about sex). He begins his geometry saying that there is nothing more finite than a point in space and follows by saying that a line between two points, while the shortest distance, can be infinitely divided.

Surely none of us can say we remember having that experience of infinitely dividing a line or isolating a single, most finite point. But it feels like something we "know" to be true, and not only because we remember studying Euclidian geometry.

How useful is this knowledge? It becomes useful not in the knowing but in the application or progress toward application. We build, as Euclid did, on those proofs of lines and points to form shapes and equations that will describe and predict parts of those shapes. And those we use to build buildings, bridges, and more. Understanding Euclid or geometry, of course, isn't the only way to build.

But it helps.

P.S. No, I don't think you need to understand geometry to have good sex.

Kurt
- 03/14/2010 at 11:36

@Eric What the are you talking about? Where mathematics comes in anatomy of sex? Oh ! Perhaps you devised a new type of mathematics of sex, when your having sex , first of you take measurements of female genita*s , then you take the length, diameter & angle of erection of your pen*s!. After that you get a nonlinear differential equation representing the input and output relation!After that measure the damping ratio and the undamped frequency of insertion ,so the female and you, would orgasm in optimum number of penetrations ! Took much of mathematics can get you ! Other than bio-mechanics, what are you talking about????

@Eric What the heck are you talking about? Where the hell mathematics comes in anatomy of sex? Oh ! perhaps you devised a new type of mathematics of sex, when your having sex , first of you take measurements of female genitals , then you take the length, diameter & angle of erection of your penis!. After that you get a nonlinear differential equation representing the input and output relation!After that measure the damping ratio and the undamped frequency of insertion ,so the female and you, would orgasm in optimum number of penetrations ! Took much of mathematics can get you ! Other than bio-mechanics, what are you talking about????

so first lets look, you are implying that experimentation is of the external; we are not using mathematics in your sense, but mathematics as order; so you are a sexually craving human being and that is something that takes up a great part of your life, consuming your brain and therefor creating disorder in your life; certainly you must see more than anatomy in this video, so therefore you yourself are also an anatomical being, so in what order do we observe the whole structure of a human being not excluding a single thing, including yourself?

what you are doing is making a specific approach of mathematics, not really understanding what it means to look, so what is looking? that is really your question

For the sake of science? Wow that is not science. I have a question that for everyone here is very important to understand the effect psychology is having on the sciences mostly in the analysis part, and that is a part to do with the institutions wanting to create a science out of psychology and many professors are teaching in that line and I have to say what a monster we have. I wonder what kids are going to learn in school, probably no longer the mathematical reasoning which is a science, which is failing amongst students or soon to be teachers, but perception based on a particularly general point of view, which is no perception at all, this is happening if you aware of it and it is very obvious and very serious
Mathematics of the serious kind really puts significance on careful attention, complete understanding, not exclusions of analysis and terrible conclusions which any serious mathematician can tell you that there are no conclusions in mathematics because with each understand is insight to something else(infinity) which for anybody who has not put learning to an end must understand

If you want to understand mankind or whatever is in this video then begin with yourself not from somebody else it is no wonder that the science which deals with solving problems rationally is the least understood and becoming more and more that way: look at the world